I didn't choose this life...

Ron de Weijze · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2011 2:56 am

Bill, I am once again happy with your most positive and encouraging response. It is wonderful to read how it reminds you of your own experience so profoundly.

Ron de Weijze · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:00 am

chaz wyman wrote:

Ron de Weijze wrote:

Chaz, cultural history is incompatible with nastiness and rudeness indeed. Although I do believe it is the source of it too, at times and places we do not have all the answers and that is all that seems left.

If it is the source of it then it must not be incompatible with it.

That is the difference between reality and our intuition (of reality).

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Ron de Weijze wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Ron de Weijze wrote:

Chaz, cultural history is incompatible with nastiness and rudeness indeed. Although I do believe it is the source of it too, at times and places we do not have all the answers and that is all that seems left.

If it is the source of it then it must not be incompatible with it.

That is the difference between reality and our intuition (of reality).

Not remotely true.

Ron de Weijze · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:24 am

chaz wyman wrote:

Ron de Weijze wrote:

Thundril wrote:

. . .says nothing about what the women were up to!

I beg to differ, having my own belief about how that works!

Either you are being completely crass or you just missed Thundril's point about your male chauvinist statement. In other words cultural history (whatever you think that is) is just as likely to be about the wrong woman at the right or wrong place.... But , then no one is worrying because you have not said what 'cultural history' is; why you think it determines us, nor by how much; and what you mean by the following sentence is anyone’s guess.

I first learned to "see" cultural history when I read Van den Berg. It turns out to have been the first book in social psychology before I knew I was going to study that. We may have psychoses or neuroses, but Van den Berg teaches, and I believe he is right, that we all have socioses first. That is how communities cannot adequately respond to changes in their socio-cultural environment and start to develop workarounds, which is how much of politics is formed but it can also kick back at a more personal level, especially when culture is really changing. One example is how mental health stabilizing ideas such as God, Truth, self and reality all were relativized and nihilized into anarchism and atheism by the Hippies to have their lives their way, but polluting others' lives with it in the mean time.

Ron de Weijze · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:28 am

Of course I do not mind you quoting me at all, Bill. Your understanding amazes me. Thank you so much!!

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Ron de Weijze wrote:

I first learned to "see" cultural history when I read Van den Berg. It turns out to have been the first book in social psychology before I knew I was going to study that. We may have psychoses or neuroses, but Van den Berg teaches, and I believe he is right, that we all have socioses first. That is how communities cannot adequately respond to changes in their socio-cultural environment and start to develop workarounds, which is how much of politics is formed but it can also kick back at a more personal level, especially when culture is really changing. One example is how mental health stabilising ideas such as God, Truth, self and reality all were relativized and nihilized into anarchism and atheism by the Hippies to have their lives their way, but polluting others' lives with it in the mean time.

I often find your posts puzzling. You run along quite nicely and then all of a sudden you throw in a wild card.

Do you think this;" all were relativized and nihilized into anarchism and atheism by the Hippies to have their lives their way, but polluting others' lives with it," is remotely justifiable?
There is so much wrong with this statement it is really hard to know were to start.
First there is the fact that you have decided to deed "hippies" as a group with an intent to do harm to others. As if they spoke with one voice.
Then there is the underlying assumption that things were okay with everyone's mental health before the hippies came along. As if the hippies had come from another planet and were not challenging social neuroses of their own society from which they actually emerged and were part of. This seems the most crass case of 'othering', I have seen in a long while on this Forum.
Worst still it is as if they had by wanting to live their own lives, upset everybody else and 'pollute' them - how exactly? It's not as if they had some power to indoctrinate their parents generation. But more than that still, Hippies marked a significant revival in Religion and particular reverence of Jesus of Nazareth. If it is possible to talk in generalities about Hippies - they marked an increase in spirituality and rejected atheism. They did not relativize nor nihilise (whatever you think that means) God and Truth - they embraced them.

Ron de Weijze · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2011 3:33 pm

chaz wyman wrote:

Ron de Weijze wrote:

I first learned to "see" cultural history when I read Van den Berg. It turns out to have been the first book in social psychology before I knew I was going to study that. We may have psychoses or neuroses, but Van den Berg teaches, and I believe he is right, that we all have socioses first. That is how communities cannot adequately respond to changes in their socio-cultural environment and start to develop workarounds, which is how much of politics is formed but it can also kick back at a more personal level, especially when culture is really changing. One example is how mental health stabilising ideas such as God, Truth, self and reality all were relativized and nihilized into anarchism and atheism by the Hippies to have their lives their way, but polluting others' lives with it in the mean time.

I often find your posts puzzling. You run along quite nicely and then all of a sudden you throw in a wild card.

[1] Do you think this: "all were relativized and nihilized into anarchism and atheism by the Hippies to have their lives their way, but polluting others' lives with it," is remotely justifiable?
[2] There is so much wrong with this statement it is really hard to know were to start.
[a] First there is the fact that you have decided to deed "hippies" as a group with an intent to do harm to others. As if they spoke with one voice.
[b] Then there is the underlying assumption that things were okay with everyone's mental health before the hippies came along. As if the hippies had come from another planet and were not challenging social neuroses of their own society from which they actually emerged and were part of. This seems the most crass case of 'othering', I have seen in a long while on this Forum.
[c] Worst still it is as if they had by wanting to live their own lives, upset everybody else and 'pollute' them - how exactly? It's not as if they had some power to indoctrinate their parents generation.
[d] But more than that still, Hippies marked a significant revival in Religion and particular reverence of Jesus of Nazareth. If it is possible to talk in generalities about Hippies - they marked an increase in spirituality and rejected atheism. They did not relativize nor nihilise (whatever you think that means) God and Truth - they embraced them.

[1] I feel it has not been very long yet, that I left the context of discovery to enter that of justification. Hippies went for postmodernism, known for relativizing and nihilizing (Heidegger, Sartre, Foucault, Ricoeur, Irigary, Baudrillard, Levinas, Derrida, Lyotard, Kristeva). Derrida stepped into the spotlights with his deconstructionism. I get sick and tired when I read how he did it and when I tell the author, his initial confirmation turns into rejection, revolving around our interpretation of Bergson.
[2a] Hippies did not want to do harm to others the way inmates always are all innocent in here. That doesn't mean inmates cannot really be innocent.
[2b] I did not say nor assume that either. You read your own assumptions into other's submissions, objectify and object to them in the crassest of your words.
[2c] Obviously you were not living in Amsterdam in the 60s. There was no park where you wouldn't stumble over the sleeping bags.
[2d] If crack was divine, Hippies were devout, sure.

Meradith · **Joined:** Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:33 pm **Posts:** 15

I may not have chosen to be born. I may not have chosen to grow up in a violent and abusive environment. I may not have chosen this life but I did create it. Since I was old enough to make my own decisions I have lived the life I created from my own thoughts, words, and actions.

Arising_uk · **Joined:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am **Posts:** 10396

Ron de Weijze wrote:

...
[2d] If crack was divine, Hippies were devout, sure.

I thought this a recent fad? You mean freebasing?

Ron de Weijze · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:05 pm

Arising_uk wrote:

Ron de Weijze wrote:

...
[2d] If crack was divine, Hippies were devout, sure.

I thought this a recent fad? You mean freebasing?

I meant to refer to whatever they smoked or sniffed, from glue to cocaine.

Arising_uk · **Joined:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am **Posts:** 10396

Ron de Weijze wrote:

... I meant to refer to whatever they smoked or sniffed, from glue to cocaine.

I also thought solvent abuse a new fad?

Ron de Weijze · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:13 pm

Arising_uk wrote:

Ron de Weijze wrote:

... I meant to refer to whatever they smoked or sniffed, from glue to cocaine.

I also thought solvent abuse a new fad?

Nothing new about it.

Ron de Weijze · **Posted:** Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:19 pm

Meradith wrote:

I may not have chosen to be born. I may not have chosen to grow up in a violent and abusive environment. I may not have chosen this life but I did create it. Since I was old enough to make my own decisions I have lived the life I created from my own thoughts, words, and actions.

Hello Meradith. That is brave and beautiful of you to say!

thalarch · **Joined:** Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:29 pm **Posts:** 140

Ron de Weijze wrote:

. . . Hippies went for postmodernism, known for relativizing and nihilizing (Heidegger, Sartre, Foucault, Ricoeur, Irigary, Baudrillard, Levinas, Derrida, Lyotard, Kristeva). . . . Obviously you were not living in Amsterdam in the 60s. . . .

Oh, the continent version of them, then. That is, lacking some of the driving stimuli of various socio-political unrests in the Anglophone world, any voids were replaced by emphasis on "homegrown" philosophy. Hipster evolution came around full circle, I suppose. From the Wandervogel movement migrating across the pond, mingling with Lost Generation after-effects and Kerouac beatitude, to Haight-Ashbury, to London influences to across the channel and making its de-evolved highlight in Europe by Ray Manzarek taking over singing duties in Amsterdam after Jim Morrison topples on stage from one of his dope/alcohol binges. Paraphrasing Grace Slick (Jefferson Airplane) from an interview: "No performer ever used EVERY pill and substance handed to them by crowding fans prior to a concert. Except Jim."

No, "de-evolved" was an unjust choice above, suggesting an undeserved fallout upon the rest of the Doors. Manzarek did a great, unexpected, on-the-spot imitation of Morrison while still doing double-duty with the keyboards; professional, minus a sign of desperation. :roll:

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Ron de Weijze wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Ron de Weijze wrote:

I first learned to "see" cultural history when I read Van den Berg. It turns out to have been the first book in social psychology before I knew I was going to study that. We may have psychoses or neuroses, but Van den Berg teaches, and I believe he is right, that we all have socioses first. That is how communities cannot adequately respond to changes in their socio-cultural environment and start to develop workarounds, which is how much of politics is formed but it can also kick back at a more personal level, especially when culture is really changing. One example is how mental health stabilising ideas such as God, Truth, self and reality all were relativized and nihilized into anarchism and atheism by the Hippies to have their lives their way, but polluting others' lives with it in the mean time.

I often find your posts puzzling. You run along quite nicely and then all of a sudden you throw in a wild card.

[1] Do you think this: "all were relativized and nihilized into anarchism and atheism by the Hippies to have their lives their way, but polluting others' lives with it," is remotely justifiable?
[2] There is so much wrong with this statement it is really hard to know were to start.
[a] First there is the fact that you have decided to deed "hippies" as a group with an intent to do harm to others. As if they spoke with one voice.
[b] Then there is the underlying assumption that things were okay with everyone's mental health before the hippies came along. As if the hippies had come from another planet and were not challenging social neuroses of their own society from which they actually emerged and were part of. This seems the most crass case of 'othering', I have seen in a long while on this Forum.
[c] Worst still it is as if they had by wanting to live their own lives, upset everybody else and 'pollute' them - how exactly? It's not as if they had some power to indoctrinate their parents generation.
[d] But more than that still, Hippies marked a significant revival in Religion and particular reverence of Jesus of Nazareth. If it is possible to talk in generalities about Hippies - they marked an increase in spirituality and rejected atheism. They did not relativize nor nihilise (whatever you think that means) God and Truth - they embraced them.

[1] I feel it has not been very long yet, that I left the context of discovery to enter that of justification. Hippies went for postmodernism, known for relativizing and nihilizing (Heidegger, Sartre, Foucault, Ricoeur, Irigary, Baudrillard, Levinas, Derrida, Lyotard, Kristeva). Derrida stepped into the spotlights with his deconstructionism. I get sick and tired when I read how he did it and when I tell the author, his initial confirmation turns into rejection, revolving around our interpretation of Bergson.
[2a] Hippies did not want to do harm to others the way inmates always are all innocent in here. That doesn't mean inmates cannot really be innocent.
[2b] I did not say nor assume that either. You read your own assumptions into other's submissions, objectify and object to them in the crassest of your words.

NO you actually said it pretty plainly.

[2c] Obviously you were not living in Amsterdam in the 60s. There was no park where you wouldn't stumble over the sleeping bags.

No - I was living in Swinging London where it all began.

[2d] If crack was divine, Hippies were devout, sure.

You are confused. Hippies went for the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Acid, and Spirituality. They went for tie-died tea-shirts, astrology and crystal gazing.
Calling Modern French Philosophy ' hippie' is beyond idiosyncratic - its just bullshit.
I think you have confused existentialists with Hippies.
As for reading what you wrote. I suggest that you go back and read it again.

Philosophy Now Forum

I didn't choose this life...

Who is online